Truchon v. Attorney General (Canada)

Truchon v. Attorney General (Canada)
Name	Truchon v. Attorney General (Canada)
Court	Quebec Superior Court
Date filed	2019
Decided	2019
Citations	2019 QCCS 3792
Judges	André Prévost
Keywords	assisted dying, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Criminal Code

Truchon v. Attorney General (Canada) was a landmark Quebec Superior Court decision that invalidated portions of the Criminal Code provisions on assisted dying, holding that restrictions in Canadian statutory law violated rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The case involved plaintiffs challenging Sections 14 and 241(b) of the Criminal Code and intersected with prior jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada, provincial health authorities, and advocacy organizations. The ruling accelerated legislative and policy responses by the Parliament of Canada, provincial legislatures, and health institutions concerned with end-of-life care.

Background

The background situates the case amid developments following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), legislative enactment of Bill C-14, and debates involving Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Criminal Code (Canada), Assemblée nationale du Québec, and health regulators. After Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) addressed medical assistance in dying, Parliament enacted Bill C-14 to establish eligibility criteria administered by provincial regulators including the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec and institutions such as Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec. The interplay between federal statute and provincial health administration implicated constitutional doctrines involving federalism in Canada, Charter litigation, and access to remedies in courts overseen by judges like André Prévost. Advocacy groups including Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, Dying With Dignity Canada, and disability rights organizations shaped the public law context.

Facts of the Case

Plaintiffs Jean Truchon and Nicole Gladu, represented by counsel with support from organizations such as Dying With Dignity Canada and disability advocacy groups, challenged Sections of the Criminal Code that required a "reasonably foreseeable" natural death as a condition for eligibility for assisted dying. The applicants argued that the statutory language conflicted with the liberty and equality guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, relied on medical evidence from practitioners affiliated with institutions like McGill University Health Centre and cited comparative jurisprudence from jurisdictions including Netherlands and Belgium. Defendants included the Attorney General of Canada and provincial attorneys general who defended Bill C-14's eligibility restrictions and cited parliamentary objectives and policy considerations from debates in the House of Commons of Canada and the Senate of Canada.

Legal Issues

Key legal issues centered on whether the impugned Criminal Code provisions infringed rights guaranteed by Sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and whether any infringement could be justified under Section 1. The court considered procedural questions about remedies including declarations under constitutional review, interlocutory relief, and remedies modeled after earlier decisions such as RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General). Secondary legal questions involved the standard of review applied to factual findings on medical prognosis and the division of powers between federal statutes and provincial health regulation as reflected in jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada and provincial superior courts.

Decision and Rationale

Judge André Prévost concluded that the "reasonably foreseeable" natural death requirement violated Section 7 liberty interests and Section 15 equality rights of the Charter by arbitrarily denying access to medical assistance in dying to individuals whose natural death was not imminent. Prévost applied principles from Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) and assessed proportionality under Section 1 with reference to precedents such as R v. Oakes and standards articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada. The ruling declared the provisions unconstitutional and suspended the declaration to allow Parliament to amend legislation; the decision engaged statutory interpretation tools from sources like debates in the House of Commons of Canada and testimonies from medical bodies including the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Impact and Aftermath

The decision prompted urgent legislative review by the Parliament of Canada, spurred amendments and policy adjustments by provincial legislatures including the Assemblée nationale du Québec, and influenced guidance from health authorities such as Health Canada and provincial ministries of health. Judicial and academic commentators compared the ruling to evolving jurisprudence on end-of-life rights in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and the European Court of Human Rights. The case affected clinical protocols at institutions such as Vancouver General Hospital and shaped disputes involving regulatory bodies including the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. Subsequent legislative and regulatory steps sought to reconcile safeguards with Charter requirements.

Reactions and Commentary

Reactions came from a spectrum: civil liberties organizations including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, disability rights advocates, medical associations such as the Canadian Medical Association, faith-based organizations, and parliamentary actors across parties represented in the House of Commons of Canada. Commentators in academic journals and media outlets compared the decision with international decisions from jurisdictions including Washington (state), Oregon, and New Zealand and debated ethical, legal, and policy trade-offs noted by scholars from institutions like University of Toronto and Université de Montréal. The ruling continues to feature in analysis of constitutional remedies, legislative drafting, and the intersection of rights adjudication with public health policy.

Category:Canadian constitutional case law Category:Medical law